Standing Committee A

Tuesday 9 November 2004 - (Morning) - Derek ConwaySchool Transport Bill

School Transport Bill

9.25 am

Stephen Twigg: I beg to move,
 That—
 (1) during proceedings on the School Transport Bill, in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 a.m. on Tuesday 9th November, the Standing Committee shall meet at—
(a) 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday 9th November, and
(b) 9.25 a.m. and 2.30 p.m. on Thursday 11th November;
 (2) proceedings on the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5 p.m. on Thursday 11th November.
 I take this opportunity to welcome your chairmanship, Mr. Conway, and that of Mr. O'Brien, who will be chairing this afternoon's sitting. I wish to express my pleasure in presenting my first Bill for scrutiny in Committee. The Bill has already been scrutinised extensively through a process of pre-legislative debate and scrutiny by both the Transport Committee and the Education and Skills Committee. 
 The Bill is short. It has only seven clauses and I am confident that we can have a full but brisk debate in Committee under your excellent chairmanship, Mr. Conway. As you know, the Programming Sub-Committee has already met, and I am pleased to move the motion based on its resolution. I look forward both to your chairmanship and to the deliberations of the Committee. 
 Question put and agreed to.

Frank Cook: I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available on the Table in the centre of the Room. I also remind colleagues that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, I and my co-Chairman do not intend to call starred amendments, including any starred amendments that may be reached during the afternoon sitting of the Committee.Clause 1 School travel schemes

Clause 1 - School travel schemes

John Pugh: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in
clause 1, page 1, line 14, after 'may', insert
', after consultation with school governing bodies and other relevant admissions bodies,'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 56, in
clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert— 
 '1A In making a school travel scheme, a local authority must demonstrate that it has engaged in reasonable consultation about the proposed scheme with parents of children for whom transport to and from school is currently provided by that local authority.'. 
No. 30, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert— 
 '2 Prior to making a scheme, the scheme authority will consult with interested parties including, but not limited to— 
 (a) the Schools Forum, 
 (b) representatives of denominational schools whose pupils might be affected by the scheme, 
 (c) teachers' organisations, 
 (d) representatives of special schools whose pupils might be affected by the scheme, 
 (e) parent governors of schools whose children will be affected, 
 (f) further education colleges, 
 (g) parents whose children are already in receipt of transport provided by the scheme authority, 
 (h) bus operators, and 
 (i) other organisations with an interest in the education of children in the scheme area. 
 3 (1) The scheme authority will publish the details of the proposed scheme and seek comments from interested parties, who will have 28 days from the date of publication of the scheme to comment. 
 (2) The scheme authority will submit to the appropriate national body a summary of the responses to the consultation together with the scheme authority's own response to the consultation.'. 
No. 24, in 
clause 1, page 2, line 5, at end insert 
 'and shall set out their reasons for introducing such a scheme.'. 
No. 59, in 
clause 1, page 3, line 17, at end insert— 
 '(3) The appropriate national authority shall not approve a school travel scheme unless the local authority proposing the scheme can demonstrate a reasonable level of support for the scheme from parents of children for whom transport to and from school is currently provided by that local authority.'.

John Pugh: I wish to underline what the Minister said. I did not realise that this was the first time that the hon. Gentleman had been in control of a Bill in Committee, so I hope that he will realise that on such occasions Ministers are accommodating and take on board a lot of Opposition amendments, and are always keen to split the difference on issues that arise. At least, I think that that is what happens. I want to put on the record how pleased I am to see you in the Chair, Mr. Conway, as I will also be pleased to see Mr. O'Brien this afternoon. I hope that we shall enjoy the experience.
 The purpose behind the Bill was summed up beautifully for me when I read some oral evidence presented to the Education and Skills Committee, when a thoughtful witness, Mr. Sykes from Herefordshire, who has experience of many school transport schemes, came out with a somewhat unguarded comment. He said: 
 ''Surely the Bill is about unpacking the procedures around the three mile entitlement, as far as I can see that is the Bill, that is what it allows authorities to look at. It allows the flexibility to move into those areas, fundamentally that is what the Bill is unpacking.'' 
The point that the Bill is a reversal of entitlement was made on Second Reading. 
 Amendment No. 21 is designed to deal with an issue that crops up soon in connection with reversing the entitlement, which is what will happen to 
 denominational and other schools that fear that they may be adversely affected, and that either pupils will not attend the school or, if they do, they will not represent a wide enough social mix. When the Secretary of State introduced the Bill on Second Reading, he wanted assurance that everyone was truly on board. At the moment there is no such assurance, and we do not know whether the Bill will provide that assurance. The amendment proposes that schemes can come forward, but that there should be a process through which schemes are properly evolved, after consultation with school governing bodies and other relevant admissions bodies. I assume that at some point, various archdiocesan and diocesan authorities will have impact on, and input into, such matters. 
 If we are to have uncontentious schemes that deliver a satisfactory outcome for the full range of schools, it is essential that, when any scheme is introduced, it is adequately consulted on by school governing bodies and other relevant admissions bodies, not simply imposed by the local authority. 
 Consultation can have various meanings in different places. It often means that people are asked what they want to happen, after which something is done anyway. All hon. Members who have had anything to do with consultations on post office closures will be familiar with that pattern. However, a meaningful consultation on any school transport scheme is essential to make it work. Apart from anything else, a certain amount of information needs to feed up from below to the people who devise the scheme and a number of practical considerations must be raised. The effect of the school transport scheme on the range of people who may go to a school is crucial. 
 The amendment would be just the kind of helpful addition that Ministers usually want to take on board, particularly in their first Bill, because it is moved truly in the spirit of consensus and conciliation.

Mark Hoban: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Conway. Like the Minister, I am a novice in leading on a Bill.

John Pugh: It seems that we are in the hands of complete amateurs. [Laughter.] It is my first Bill, too.

Mark Hoban: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not referring to your chairmanship, Mr. Conway. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. We will see, as the Committee proceeds, who are the amateurs.
 I shall speak to amendment No. 30, which was tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). As the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said, it is important that the Bill, which will radically change the provision of school transport and affect the way in which it is provided to many children throughout the country, has a proper consultation process underpinning any scheme that comes forward from local education authorities wishing to take part in the pilot project. 
 That is important because it will lead to significant change for many children who currently enjoy free school transport and will impact on many children 
 with special educational needs. It will impact on the institutions in LEA areas, such as the denominational schools, special schools and schools in rural areas. There is a huge impact in terms of the number of people affected, and also for the institutions. 
 It is important that if people will lose out as a consequence of the Bill—where they will be charged for transport that has hitherto been free—they are consulted when the scheme is drawn up. The guidance currently available to LEAs is too brief, which is why amendment No. 30 fleshes out the consultation process. The Select Committee on Education and Skills, in paragraph 112 of its pre-legislative scrutiny report, said: 
 ''Well-run schemes should be based on wide consultation with schools as well as other stakeholders and should have secured agreement about their proposals.'' 
That is the purpose of the amendment. 
 Amendment No. 30 sets out the range of organisations that we wish to see consulted. The school admission forum is the perfect body for an LEA to consult, because it is already set up to talk about issues, such as school funding and budgets and service contracts between schools and LEAs, and is an automatic, logical focus for consultation with schools to discuss the draft and proposed schemes. 
 We must also ensure that representatives of denominational schools are consulted properly. It is important to recognise that there is concern within faith groups about the Bill. In later debates on other amendments we will talk about some of the aspects affecting denominational schools. Many such schools are concerned that charging for school transport will reduce the choice available to parents. We must ensure that they are happy and that they understand the schemes. They have concerns not only about the impact on their schools, but about the impact of charging on some of the less affluent families in our communities. 
 Another group will be affected too. On Second Reading we highlighted the fact that two thirds of the existing school transport budget is spent on children with special educational needs. That is a very visible part of the budget, and some local education authorities might feel that costs could be squeezed out of it through introducing these schemes. We must ensure that schools that have pupils who receive free transport because they have special educational needs should be part of the consultation process, so that the people who draw up the scheme can fully understand the impact on children who attend such a school, and think carefully about the distances that they travel. 
 I want to pick up on the issue of further education colleges as consultees. The implementation of the Tomlinson report on the education of children aged 14 to 19 will require greater flexibility between schools and further education colleges. Many more children aged 14 to 16 will access vocational parts of the curriculum at their local further education college. We must ensure that any draft scheme that comes forward takes into account that changing architecture of 14-to-16 education, and that further education colleges 
 express their views about how schemes will affect children who want to attend such colleges for that part of their education. 
 The bus operators too will be affected by the Bill, particularly in areas where they currently operate schemes that a local authority might seek to take over—through yellow buses, similar schemes, or their own plans to provide transport for children. As so many bus operators already provide significant transport to our schools, we must ensure that they are part of the consultation process. 
 Proposed new paragraphs 3(1) and 3(2) in amendment No. 30 arise from my concern to ensure that the scheme authorities have a proper consultation process and that time is taken over it; we have suggested 28 days for people to comment. It is also important that when the scheme comes forward to the Secretary of State for his approval, scheme authorities have identified the local concerns to him. Before he approves the scheme, he should know what they are and, more particularly, how the scheme authority has responded to them. The Select Committee said that it was important that 
 ''Well-run schemes should be based on wide consultation with schools as well as other stakeholders and should have secured agreement about their proposals.'' 
Clearly, a scheme that attracts widespread opposition from the local community, which has not been responded to fully by the scheme authority, is unlikely to be effective in achieving the Government's objectives. I think that the amendments are sensible and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to them. They are about trying to ensure that the consultation process that underpins the scheme rules will be thorough and full, and will deliver the agreement of all stakeholders interested in school transport.

Stephen Twigg: I very much agree with the hon. Member for Southport about the consensus that exists about the importance of full consultation on this important subject. I think that the only difference that will emerge in this opening debate is about how that is best achieved via the Bill.
 Allow me, Mr. Conway, to discuss amendments Nos. 21, 30 and 56, which relate to paragraph 1 of the proposed new schedule 35B to the Education Act 1996. As we have heard in the opening speeches, all of them list bodies or groups of people that the LEA would need to consult formally before submitting its application to the Department for Education and Skills. Amendment No. 21 lists school governing bodies and relevant admissions bodies. Amendment No. 30 sets out a longer, non-exhaustive list of bodies to be consulted, and amendment No. 56 would require a local authority to embark on a reasonable consultation with parents of children for whom transport to and from school is currently provided by the local authority. 
 I agree with the hon. Members for Southport and for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) that school travel schemes need to engage all local stakeholders—not least the 
 parents and pupils directly affected, and in particular the parents whose children's transport is provided by the local authority. The stakeholders identified in amendment No. 30 are all significant and must have the opportunity to be involved in putting in place school travel scheme arrangements. 
 We have envisaged dealing with consultation in a particular way. The prospectus that accompanies the Bill includes a paragraph—paragraph 14—on local consultation, and provides a slightly different list of organisations to be consulted before scheme proposals are submitted for approval, either to the Department for Education and Skills or to the Welsh Assembly. We will add to that list the schools forum and the admissions forum and insert a specific further reference to denominational and special schools to take account of the bodies listed in the amendments. We will also ensure that local consultation pays particular attention to the views of parents whose children's transport is currently provided. 
 As it stands, the prospectus does not set out a specific process for consultation. On reflection, I think that it might be helpful to set out a minimum requirement, such as the one outlined by the hon. Member for Fareham in amendment No. 30, to remind local education authorities that we expect them to carry out a formal consultation as well as informal discussions during the development phase.

Mark Hoban: I welcome the Minister's reassurances. Will he outline what would happen if a scheme authority did not follow the process outlined in the prospectus and did not consult the range of groups that he has identified?

Stephen Twigg: In those circumstances it would be highly unlikely that the scheme would be given approval. We set out a scheme for consultation in the prospectus, and we expect it to be followed before an authority has any prospect of its scheme being approved. For the local pilots to be successful or have the prospect of success, it is vital that they have buy-in from relevant people in the local community, and that would include the range of organisations listed in the prospectus, as well as those set out in the two amendments. Further education colleges are listed in the prospectus. The hon. Member for Fareham makes a reasonable point about Tomlinson, and we will consider again the wording of the prospectus in light of the Tomlinson proposals.
 With officials, I shall give the issue of consultation further thought and I shall have further discussions with local education authorities and others. Depending on their advice, I may make the prospectus more prescriptive. At this stage, I do not want to give a precise commitment on the form that that will take because there are pressures to ensure that we do not end up with something too bureaucratic. I also want to have discussions with colleagues in Wales to ensure that they have the opportunity to discuss the issues with Welsh LEAs and key stakeholders as well. 
 Amendment No. 30 also relates to the material that will be submitted either to the Department for Education and Skills or the Welsh Assembly as part of 
 the scheme application. Our draft application form asks for information about the consultation process and the views of partners; the hon. Gentleman raised that point. We will review the application form before we invite bids from potential pilot authorities to ensure that, as part of their bids, applicant authorities submit with their response a summary of responses to the consultation. I hope that the approach that I have set out reassures those who tabled the amendments, and in the light of that, I ask them not to press those amendments.

Roger Casale: I am grateful to you, Mr. Conway, for allowing me to speak to the amendments that stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). I apologise to you and the Minister for not catching your eye when we were discussing the earlier amendments.
 I welcome your chairmanship, Mr. Conway, and I welcome the Bill. It is a good and sensible Bill, and I do not want to seem to be trying to derail it by attempting to put too much into it at this stage. Therefore, the amendments that I shall move today will be very much probing amendments. I am encouraged to hear what the Minister said about the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Southport, which was that the matter would receive further consideration as we took the Bill forward. 
 I have an interest in the Bill because, like many hon. Members, I have families in my constituency with children who have special educational needs, and who have to be transported between home and school by minicab. As I said at an earlier stage, we have experienced serious deficiencies in the provision of service. It is not just a minicab that is required but an escort to go with the child. Such children are often unable to express themselves verbally, and so if something goes wrong they cannot tell anybody about it. We need to recognise that children who are already in a vulnerable situation may be placed in one that is even more vulnerable as a result of the provision of the service transporting them between home and school. 
 The issue of consultation is absolutely central to addressing those concerns. We should remember that consultation is also about providing information. Some of the absolutely fundamental information that parents in that situation need to know is whether the minicab driver is licensed; whether he or she has been police checked; how the escort was recruited; whether he or she received appropriate training; and whether he or she has been police checked. Four years ago—I am pleased to say that my local authority has improved considerably since—that was basic, fundamental information that my constituents did not have; that was our starting point. Of course, that led to acute anxiety on their part and a complete lack of confidence in the service provided, upon which they were so dependent. 
 I tabled amendments Nos. 56 and 59 because we were addressing those fundamental concerns by trying to challenge the council, by holding meetings, and by 
 approaching the Department and trying to get it to pull its socks up, but we simply did not have a sufficiently strong lever to get the action that we needed to improve the situation quickly enough. As I say, the situation has improved, but it has taken four years. 
 Since then, I have raised the matter on a number of occasions in the House, including in Prime Minister's questions, and colleagues from all parties have approached me and said that they have experienced similar problems elsewhere. That is why it is important that we examine whether we can deal with the issue in the Bill. It may not be dealt with in this Bill; I know that a road safety Bill will be brought forward, and that may be a more appropriate vehicle for it. However, there is a lacuna and a difficulty, which I believe needs to be addressed through the law. 
 We must take seriously the opportunity that the Bill gives us, particularly in terms of consultation and providing parents with the basic information that I described, including police checks on drivers and escorts taking children with special educational needs to school. Consultation is an opportunity to ensure that. 
 I know that amendment No. 56 speaks of a statutory duty to ensure ''reasonable consultation'', but none of us would think it unreasonable, in consultation, to provide users of the service with information on how drivers and escorts are being police checked. Consultation is also a valuable way of improving the service, to the extent that there is a problem; and we all know about the difficulties, including the problem in getting police checks made in time through the Criminal Records Bureau. Users—parents, in this case—and the local authority can work together to address that problem and come up with a different system of registration. My constituent Mary Powell and other parents in the Merton special educational needs network made many constructive suggestions to Merton borough council about how the issue could be addressed. Mention was made of the need to have occupational health forms, and job and character references that are checked before mini-cab drivers and escorts are employed. Identity passes are important, so that when someone Mary Powell has never seen before turns up at her door to take her autistic child on the 30-minute journey to school at least that person has an official identification badge that is easily recognisable, and which Mrs. Powell has confidence in, which means that she knows that that person has been satisfactorily checked.

Frank Cook: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but a broad variety of amendments has been selected so I will not allow the discussion to turn into a stand part debate ranging across the Bill. He is in danger of moving on to amendment No. 53, which we will address when we come on to a later group of amendments.
 I say not only to the hon. Gentleman but to all Committee members that I intend to keep them firmly to the amendments under discussion; otherwise, as there are so many amendments to this clause we might as well just have a stand part debate and let everybody 
 talk about whatever they want. For the convenience of the Committee and good order we will rigidly stick to the subject being discussed.

Roger Casale: I am grateful for that, Mr. Conway. I have made my point about why such an amendment is needed. The purpose of the amendment is to introduce a duty to consult with parents whose children are existing users of local authority school transport services. That is a fundamental requirement if parents are to have confidence in the service. It is also a mechanism for providing a better service than that which has been on offer to my constituents, for example in the situation I have just described.

Peter Atkinson: I rose earlier and tried to catch your eye, Mr. Conway, because I feared that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) was not going to speak to amendment No. 59. He has not spoken to it to any great extent. However, I want to speak in support of amendment No. 59, which was tabled in his name and that of the hon. Member for Stroud, because it is a good amendment. The Minister did not comment on it because it had not been discussed when he made his speech.
 Amendment No. 59 gives parents in a particular area an absolute lock over whether the scheme goes ahead. I support that. I represent a large rural constituency—which you know, Mr. Conway. My main concern is that school transport costs are extremely high in Northumberland; the cost for the local educational authority is about £400 to £500 per pupil per year. If the scheme were to involve charging, it is clear that, if amendment No. 59 were agreed to, the local authority would find it impossible to demonstrate that there was a reasonable level of support for the scheme because clearly no parents would vote for a scheme that introduced charges for something that they already got for free. 
 I am an enthusiast for amendment No. 59 and I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about it.

Huw Edwards: I am pleased to be able to support in principle the amendments of my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon and for Stroud and, I hope, of the hon. Members for Southport and for Fareham.
 I have an interest in this subject because I have been involved in consultations on two main areas. Committee members will be aware of an organisation called BUSK, which has campaigned to improve safety on school transport. Pat Harris, the leader of that campaign, was a constituent of mine and I was quite involved in her campaign in the early '90s. Since my re-election in 1997, I returned to the subject of school transport because of the overcrowding issue. I secured an Adjournment debate on that, which was responded to by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig). There has been serious overcrowding on the school 
 transport system and anybody who has consulted on the issue in my constituency would wish that problem to be solved. 
 I am not talking about the contract buses—contracted by the local authority—that are used to transport children. My main concern has been the service buses that are used by pupils, and which has led to considerable overcrowding. I secured an Adjournment debate on the problem of the Llandogo to Monmouth service in the Wye valley, where 50 to 60 children were boarding a single-decker bus, which became heavily overcrowded and transported them 6 or 7 miles up the Wye valley at speeds of 55 to 60 miles an hour—or whatever its speed limit was. That was dangerous for pupils who were standing. I realised that the regulations on the number of passengers being carried on such buses—and on any public transport buses—needed to be reviewed. 
 What if I asked the Minister, or any Committee member, ''How many passengers can a 52-seater bus carry?'' They may be amazed to know that the answer is 52, plus 20 standing and 26 who are allowed to sit, if they are under 15, under the three-for-two rule. That situation is due to the Education Act 1944 and leads to considerable overcrowding. Thankfully, in my constituency the county council funded an additional bus, which has relieved that problem, but we are dealing with the law and I hope that the Committee will consider this issue. 
 Consultation has been important and has been discussed by the Monmouth comprehensive—[Interruption.]

Frank Cook: Order. The hon. Gentleman started to range wider than children standing on buses, but the Clerk and I noticed that he said the magic word ''consultation'' just in time.

Huw Edwards: Consultation is the underlying theme of this discussion, and it relates to pupils through the school forums involving teachers and other organisations.
 I notice in amendment No. 30, tabled by the hon. Member for Fareham, the words: 
''other organisations with an interest in the education of children in the scheme area.'' 
One such organisation, which has recently been formed, is Stuart's Campaign. Committee members will recall the tragic case in the Vale of Glamorgan a couple of years ago, when a service bus crashed, leading to the death of a young boy sitting in the top deck. The cause of the crash is believed to have been horseplay among pupils on the lower deck. The group organising Stuart's Campaign was formed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) has been closely involved with it. I would hope that such an organisation has to be consulted about school transport plans. 
 I thank the Minister for his reassurance that there will be greater consultation and I hope that the spirit of the amendments will be adopted, or at least that the Government will consider them. 
 Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): I am delighted to serve under your Chairmanship, Mr. Conway. I apologise for missing the first couple of minutes of the Committee. I was on a late train—so some of us have views on transport at the moment.
 I shall speak narrowly to the two amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon and myself and add some points that have not been dealt with yet. Consultation is so important because transport is an acute problem at certain times of the year—usually at the start of the school year and in particular circumstances. I do not know whether other Committee members have encountered the same problem as me, but too often, at the start of the school year, school travel arrangements have been left to a lottery. 
 One of the pressure points that I would like to see fully explored is the emphasis not just on the local authority to ensure that it knows what it is doing, but also on the operators. Too often operators pull out of arrangements, giving fairly late notice and sometimes breaking contracts, thereby leaving pupils vulnerable. That is especially difficult and true where there are special arrangements for children with special educational needs. As I said on Second Reading—I make no apology for restating it—one of my red lines for this Bill is that we must be especially clear that those children who are moved around to special schools, or have special arrangements because of their special educational needs, are secure in the knowledge that they will always be foremost in any consultation arrangement. 
 It is also important that we discuss whether there is a possibility of some reorganisation. Thankfully, under this Government there have been very few school closures. However, inevitably there are areas, particularly within special education—including special education for children with moderate learning difficulties—in which a better arrangement could come out of some future proposal. However, one of the key issues that must always be addressed is the securing of transport arrangements for the children involved, who will inevitably have to change their existing arrangements. 
 I hope that the Minister will consider the amendments carefully. I would like to think that they could be included in the Bill, although I am always willing to accept that their wording may need re-working. Given the spirit of consensus that has broken out in the Committee, I would hope that we could, if anything, strengthen the arrangements. Amendment No. 59 would provide an armlock at national level if there was real dispute at a local level. A lot of parents would like such a failsafe; they would have a second layer to appeal to if they felt that arrangements were unfair and ill thought through at a local level. I hope that the Minister will see the amendments as more than probing amendments. They are designed to toughen up the Bill a little so that a proper and foolproof level of consultation is included.

Stephen Twigg: I shall respond in particular to the points raised in amendments Nos. 56 and 59, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. I addressed some of the issues in amendment No. 56 in my earlier remarks, so I shall focus on amendment No. 59.
 My hon. Friend raised important issues, such as security, police checks and the role of the Criminal Records Bureau, some of which we will return to when we discuss amendment No. 53 and the amendments in that group that he has tabled. Today he has built on the important contribution that he made to the debate on Second Reading. I believe that that will be important not only for his local authority; there will be lessons to be learned for others that are part of the scheme as well. 
 I am happy to give my hon. Friends the Members for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) and for Vale of Glamorgan the absolute assurance that organisations such as Stuart's Campaign, with which they have been closely associated, and BUSK would be consulted. If such schemes are to move forward, it is vital that there is maximum local support for them. Clearly, engaging with organisations that take up issues such as the tragic death of Stuart Cunningham-Jones is exactly the sort of approach that we want authorities to take at the local level. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth mentioned that one of the issues associated with the death of Stuart Cunningham-Jones was the behaviour of other young people on the bus. The hon. Member for Fareham has tabled an amendment on the issue of pupil behaviour, which is significant for school transport and a significant factor behind the reluctance of some parents and pupils to use the school bus or public transport and their preference for using cars. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) rightly placed emphasis on engaging with parents of pupils with special educational needs, and, more broadly, on engaging with organisations that represent them. We shall return to that issue later. My hon. Friend also reminded us, rightly, of the critical importance of the role of bus operators, which are listed not only in his amendment but in the prospectus. 
 Amendment No. 59 would add a sub-paragraph to paragraph 8 of schedule 35B. Its effect would be to prevent the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales from approving school travel schemes unless they had reasonable support among parents for whose children transport is currently provided by the local authority. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made a strong argument in favour of really engaging with those parents whose sons and daughters currently either benefit from free transport or have transport provided for them. 
 The focus of the Bill is on helping local education authorities to put together local travel schemes that cater for the needs of all pupils in the LEA area. We want to move away from the current position, in which LEAs focus on providing statutory transport, mostly by bus. We want LEAs to provide integrated schemes 
 that cater for walking and cycling wherever possible, as well as for bus use in cases where pupils live beyond reasonable walking distance. 
 It is important that parents in the system are engaged with the scheme, but we have to recognise the needs of those who do not qualify for free transport. We recently carried out a survey that showed that, in the case of 64 per cent. of children who travelled to school by bus or taxi, it was the parents, not the LEA, who paid. The average amount per child per week was £7.29. Many other children walk or cycle to school, and we want school travel schemes to consider their needs as well as those of bus users. 
 Given that parents of pupils for whom school transport is provided are a small proportion of the total number of parents in many areas, I cannot accept that we should give those parents a veto on school travel schemes when a much wider group of people could benefit. However, it is of course important, for the reasons given, that their point of view is taken into account. 
 The prospectus already requires authorities to consult widely and to include details of the consultation process in their applications, as I have said. We will ensure that the application includes a specific summary of the views of those parents for whom transport is currently provided by the LEA, alongside the views of other stakeholders. I hope that the proposed mechanism will meet the concerns of my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon and for Stroud, and that they will not press their amendments.

John Pugh: There has been a very consensual atmosphere so far—disturbingly so, I might say. The Minister has certainly sought to split the difference. One can agree to an amendment and change the legislation, or disagree with it and not change the legislation. At first, I thought that he would go for the ministerial compromise of agreeing to the amendment but not changing the legislation in any way; however, he seems to have incorporated in his remarks a suggestion that changes will be made in the prospectus, at least. There is merit in that, and also in surveying the full range of proposals put forward today. They are diverse in character.
 I suppose that it could be suggested that the details and format of consultations are a matter for bodies quite apart from, or in addition to, Parliament. However, the Minister has conceded quite definitely that, in principle, there is a requirement to consult. There is a duty on the part of anybody submitting a school transport scheme to engage in consultation. Without entering into the exact details of how that consultation might go and precisely whom it might involve, I cannot think of an overwhelming objection to putting that duty in the Bill. 
 I am happy to withdraw the amendment for the moment, but I suggest to the Minister that if he is so enthusiastic for, and accepting of, the argument that consultation is an important prerequisite for a decent school transport scheme, it might be worth specifying 
 that in the Bill, and perhaps bringing forward an amendment that says that on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Frank Cook: I remind the Committee that if hon. Members wish to press any of the grouped amendments to a Division, they may do so according to the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. If hon. Members tell me or the Clerk that they so wish, I will ensure that the amendment is formally moved at the right time, so that we are all clear about what we are doing.

George Young: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 1, line 15, leave out 'or any part'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 22, in page 1, line 15, at end insert
', or in conjunction with another local authority, make a school travel scheme for the whole or any part of their area'.

George Young: It is a pleasure to serve under your benign but firm chairmanship, Mr. Conway. I shall speak to amendment No. 23, the impact of which would be to oblige a local education authority to apply any scheme to the whole of its area, rather than to a part of it. In tabling this amendment, I beat my Front Bench to the draw. It is essentially a probing amendment. I assume that this provision is in the Bill because local authorities want it to be included as they wish to apply a travel scheme to a part of their area rather than to all of it; it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that. If that is the case, I would be interested to know whether the area in question will be defined by schools or by where the children live.
 To revert to our recent debate about consultation, it would be easier to consult if the whole of an area were covered by a travel scheme, because if an attempt were made to consult on a part of an area it may be found that, for whatever reason, the people consulted were not covered by it. Also, in terms of contracts with the transport authorities, I imagine that it would be easier for the education authority to cover the whole of the area and have a similar contract for all the buses than to have one contract using the provisions under the Bill for part of the area and another contract for other areas. 
 It is important to try to avoid complexity for schools and families. However these areas are defined—whether by where schools are located or where the family lives—there is the potential for complexities. If the area is defined by school so that all the schools are covered, families that send their children to a school within that area will have one regime but a school that is further away and is outside the scheme will have a different regime. If it is defined by the area in which people live rather than by school, there will be similar potential complexities; some families in a village who send their children to one school might be covered by a travel scheme and other families who send their children to another school might have a different regime because it is in an excluded area. 
 The amendment is intended to find out the criteria and reasons for this measure. Is the legislation's focus on urban areas so that traffic congestion in our cities can be addressed, or is it envisaged that it will apply to rural areas as well?

Mark Hoban: I support amendment No. 23. It goes to the heart of one of the important issues in this Bill, which is the pilots—the size of the area covered by them and the criteria used to determine who falls within and without the pilot areas.
 If a scheme is based on the location of parents, I am concerned that a situation might arise in which some pupils at a school receive free transport and others do not. Will that constitute discrimination against the parents who are not in receipt of free school transport? If the scheme is based on the location of schools, who will decide which schools are in and out of the pilot area, and what will be the impacts on the schools that are without the pilot area and those that are within? 
 I understand the attraction of having a pilot scheme across a part of a local education authority area. My constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) fall within Hampshire's LEA. It is one of the largest shire counties, stretching from Aldershot and Andover in the north to the New Forest and Fareham in the south. If one wanted to look at the effects of a pilot scheme, it would be difficult to do so if it covered the whole of that LEA as it serves very different communities. 
 There is also the question of what areas a pilot will cover if it covers only a part of a county. In my constituency, there are five secondary schools and very few children are in receipt of free transport because it is a predominantly suburban area where most children live within 3 miles of a secondary school. A school transport scheme in that area would be of interest in terms of the effects on urban traffic congestion but it might not give any indication as to the impact of such a scheme on the more rural areas of the county. In my constituency, there is not much movement between schools. Most children go the school in whose geographical catchment area they live. Little evidence would be gained from a pilot in my constituency on the impact of charging on school choice. It is easier to monitor the effects of a partial scheme in such a small area and some benefits are to be gained from that. Alternatively, one might examine areas in which there is much more variety of school choice and area—for example, with both rural and urban parts. Local authorities will need guidance from the Department and from the Welsh Assembly as to what should comprise a partial pilot scheme area. 
 There are some LEAs for which a pilot scheme that covers only part of the area is wholly inappropriate. Portsmouth has a very small unitary authority and I do not believe that it could be divided in half and have a scheme that affected only part of it. Southampton falls into the same priority. 
 The other amendment in the group allows LEAs to work together and one might find that a pilot scheme that covers the urban part of south Hampshire—ranging from Portsmouth and Southampton through Fareham and Eastleigh—might be an interesting way of seeing the impact on a variety of areas and of running across boundaries. 
 In relation to the boundary between the Portsmouth and Hampshire LEAs, we know that some pupils swap from Portsmouth schools into Fareham and into Hampshire schools. The impact on those sorts of journeys would be interesting to monitor in a pilot scheme that covered several LEAs. 
 Important issues need to be teased out about the ability of LEAs to pilot schemes in part of an area or between LEAs. While it looks attractive to LEAs to go for a partial scheme, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire said, it is riddled with complexity and difficulty. Schemes need to be well thought through in order to address those issues.

John Pugh: I would like to speak in favour amendment No.22, which I tabled, and make some comments about amendment No. 23.
 The two amendments are based on almost different directions. As I understand it, under amendment No. 23 a pilot can only ever be a whole authority pilot. That puts an element of restriction that does not currently exist into pilot schemes. Amendment No.22 states that a local authority may put forward a scheme 
''in conjunction with another local authority . . . for the whole or any part of their area''. 
It adds an element of flexibility, not restriction, into what can and cannot be done in a pilot. 
 My reason for tabling amendment No.22 is that local authorities are fairly strange beasts in many respects. They are lines on a map and do not necessarily reflect natural transport routes or a wide sense of community. When we conjure names such as Sandwell and Sefton, we struggle to find them on the map. Local authorities are, by and large, administrative conveniences and not natural arrangements for organising transport. Many of them have a supervening transport authority, which sits above them and links them in that given area. 
 Not only are local authorities not well connected with culture or community, they are not especially well connected with geography or with transport routes. I could advance that as a kind of a priori argument, but I think that in the evidence to the Select Committee there were instances where imaginative local authorities had co-operated with other local authorities and with the local passenger transport authority to produce schemes, sometimes quite small-scale ones, that worked within an area but crossed local authority boundaries. Bus providers also are not particularly sensitive to local authority boundaries and neither is the train service. 
 As I have said, passenger transport authorities operate over a number of local authority boundaries and are used to working in collaboration with several local authorities on specific projects. In most urban environments, the passenger transport authorities are 
 familiar with the model whereby local authorities collaborate in a transport scheme that is of benefit to the whole community. 
 There is a certain amount of practical sense in amendment No. 22. I would not die in the ditch over it, but it offers some flexibility, especially in areas where communities across local authority boundaries are quite well linked to the schools the children attend and where a scheme would work well. The amendment would incorporate flexibility into the Bill that is currently not there. If people were up for pilots, there could be a greater variety of them if the spirit of the amendment were accepted. 
 However, for various reasons, amendment No. 23 would provide for a lesser number of pilots, although I accept that the arrangements would be characterised by less complexity, as the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire said. However, complexity is not the only issue to bear in mind; whole authority pilot schemes would be fairly formidable to set up. Given the current range of pilots, several local authorities are suggesting that they would have difficulty in carrying them out and that they would require pump priming. Many hon. Members have suggested that there should be pump priming for such schemes. 
 If we seriously want pilots to operate in order to gain the best information, we do not need to be so restrictive. Opposition Members have said that there will be differential effects. If a pilot were set up in an area, some people would be outside its range. But such is the nature of pilots. How can they be different? If they were the same for everyone, they would not be pilots. Unless they were piloted in terms only of their time duration as opposed to their spatial limitation, they would be schemes. We are familiar in most environments with pilots being run with a range of schemes in areas by specific local authorities, not only on transport, but other matters. I am not sure that amendment No. 23 would guarantee the greater success of pilots than the Bill, as drafted, would, but amendment No. 22 would offer flexibility that is not in the Bill.

Janet Dean: I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Conway. As has been said, amendments Nos. 22 and 23 are opposites. I have some sympathy with amendment No. 22 in that it would offer the opportunity of reaching across borders. Pupils from Derbyshire choose to attend a school in Uttoxeter in my constituency. Obviously, they pay for their transport over the border, but such issues were reflected in comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth when he referred to overcrowding on the buses.
 If we are considering whether such schemes are partial or whole for authorities such as Staffordshire, we should also look over the border at the impact of those schemes and the benefits that they could bring to pupils who, by tradition, attend school in the authority area. Whether we look at an authority-wide or partial scheme for pilots is important. My authority covers a 
 huge area and authorities, such as Staffordshire, may want to consider partial trials rather than those that would cover the whole authority area. Even when pupils are already paying for transport because they attend schools outside the catchment area, we should consider how to accommodate them within a transport plan. If the Minister can reassure us that authorities will be able to make arrangements with their neighbouring authority, that would be of great help.

Stephen Twigg: This has been an important debate and I am grateful to Opposition Members and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) for their participation. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire was right to say that the provisions reflect some of our discussions with local government. I wish first to emphasise that we are keen to get applications from authorities for authority-wide schemes. However, we also want authorities to have the flexibility to develop the best possible pilot schemes. In a sense, there is a trade-off between the danger of complexity, to which the right hon. Gentleman correctly referred, and the advantages of flexibility, to which the hon. Member for Southport referred. The Bill is deliberately deregulatory, and is intended to provide flexibility for local education authorities to design pilot schemes that best suit the needs of their local areas.
 During the consultation process with local government, a number of LEAs suggested that some of the larger authorities in particular might wish to develop schemes that address issues in a limited geographical area. That strikes at the point that the right hon. Gentleman made. An authority might wish to maintain existing arrangements in one area, while trying new arrangements elsewhere. 
 I was struck by the comments from the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), which built on what he said on Second Reading, and by the similar points made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). There are areas of rurality in which the distances are so great that an authority would not wish to consider changes to existing arrangements because benefits could not arise. However, in the same county or authority—I do not know if this would apply in Northumberland, but it might elsewhere—a scheme could apply to a suburban, urban or semi-rural part of the area. We have included this provision to enable that to happen.

George Young: Will the Minister clarify whether the defined area is for school or residential purposes?

Stephen Twigg: Our current thinking is that school travel schemes are based on the home residence of the child. However, in the light of what the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hexham have said, I shall reconsider that aspect in consultation with local government and others to see if we can build in more flexibility. They raised a good point about whether we could refer to the school as well as or instead of the home. We may need flexibility on that point depending on the local area—the hon. Gentleman gave good examples from his constituency about how that might operate.
 Amendment No. 22, as a number of hon. Members have said, takes us in a different direction. For the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and the hon. Member for Southport, there are good arguments for collaboration and co-operation across what are often artificial LEA boundaries. During consultation, a number of LEAs suggested that we consider joint schemes, and we contemplated allowing for them in the Bill, with two or more LEAs making a single application. However, we concluded that there are a number of difficulties with such an approach. For example, once a scheme had started, what would we do if one LEA wanted to amend the scheme for its area but the other did not? What if, following piloting, one LEA wanted to revoke the scheme whereas the other wanted it to continue because it worked well in its area? The joint schemes that the amendment envisages could meet some of those problems. 
 Let me make it clear that as the Bill stands, two or more LEAs could submit identical schemes to run concurrently. If LEAs face similar issues—this relates particularly to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton—we would encourage local LEAs to collaborate, especially if there were cross-boundary issues to be addressed.

Mark Hoban: In London, with which the Minister is more familiar given his role as the Minister in the education team responsible for London matters, there are huge cross-borough movements of pupils every day—41 per cent. of children in Lambeth are educated outside Lambeth. Given the impact of that on traffic congestion, the issue of LEAs working together is important, but there is the additional aspect that much of school transport in London is dealt with by Transport for London.

Stephen Twigg: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I have had informal discussions about this matter with Transport for London and Committee members may have received representations from that body. Further work is required to consider the different elements relating to London. We may receive expressions of interest from a number of boroughs that could come together in the way that I have just described. Although I am not aware that we have received such expression at this stage, that may be possible, and I agree that Transport for London would have a critical role to play in that respect.

Jim Knight: As I understand it, the Department has in mind a limited number of pilots. If, as I hope, the Bill is popular when it is enacted, and if a lot of local authorities want to join together and submit separate schemes as part of a joint scheme, would those count as one pilot or several?

Stephen Twigg: We want some flexibility. We have talked about a rough number of 20, but my hon. Friend is right to say that if such pilots prove successful and there is a clear basis for a scheme that will work—not just in one authority, but elsewhere—we will have the opportunity, through secondary legislation, to
 open up the possibility for other authorities to become part of the programme. That flexibility is important. We will deal later with the specific features of the Bill that enable that to happen, at which point I will be able to go into more detail in response to the question asked by my hon. Friend.
 The benefits of collaboration, which the hon. Member for Southport set out in speaking to amendment No. 22, can be achieved as I have said, rather than as is proposed in the amendment, which has some difficulties. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

George Young: Given that well-informed, courteous reply it would be impertinent for me to press my amendment to a Division, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Kidney: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 2, line 8, at end insert—
'(aa) arrangements for the safety of children embarking or disembarking from the transport provided,'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 47, in page 2, line 8, at end insert—
'(aa) arrangements for the safety of the transport under the scheme,'. 
No. 25, in 
page 2, line 16, after 'suitable', insert 'and safe'. 
No. 26, in 
page 2, line 18, after 'within', insert 'safe'. 
No. 48, in 
page 2, line 30, at end insert— 
 (3A) No pupil shall be entitled to transport under a school travel scheme where his behaviour puts at risk the safety of other pupils using the same mode of transport.'.

John Pugh: Have I withdrawn amendment No. 22, Mr. Conway?

Frank Cook: Fortunately, the hon. Gentleman does not need to, because it was grouped for debate purposes only. Unless I call him to move it formally, it is not moved, so he does not have to withdraw it and we all swing along happily together.

David Kidney: I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Conway. Having served on Committees chaired by you, I know you to be fair and wise.
 It is a pleasure to see that a number of amendments to do with safety for children and vulnerable people travelling to and from school have been grouped together. My amendment deals specifically with safety on school bus journeys, but others in the group raise concerns that are equally valuable. 
 Hon. Members may have noticed that I have tabled a new clause relating to another part of the Bill that would import into our law an American law against motorists on the road overtaking school buses when they stop to let pupils on or off. If Parliament does not think that a new law for all motorists is appropriate, would it be appropriate to draw the attention of local authorities seeking to pilot new ways of making the 
 school journey to some aspects of American law that could be imported into their existing school bus contracts? 
 I shall give some examples from America, where there is a law in every state, rather than a single federal law. In Arizona, every bus must have a sign and show flashing lights when pupils get on or off, and every bus in Maine has to shown flashing lights when doing so. In Missouri, every bus must have a mechanical and electrical signalling device and even a sign on the back saying, ''State law: stop while bus is loading and unloading.'' In New York, there have to be flashing lights and in Washington state, hazard warning lamps have to flash. That gives local authorities some idea about what they could do to buses at present, even without there being a law to say that motorists have to stop while the bus is stationary so that pupils can embark or disembark. 
 I ask the Minister to consider that, in the longer term, it would be desirable for all motorists to give their attention to having to stop if the bus is letting pupils off or taking them on. However, even in the short term we could start making more visible to all motorists the fact that there are vulnerable people getting off and on school buses. Some of those people might not have had the same instruction or have the same road sense as others, and motorists ought to be careful. The kind of signals and signs that I mentioned might be helpful to all motorists. 
 I would not like to finish without reassuring everyone that travel to school by bus is of course already much safer than all the other ways of travelling to school. I would not want people to think that this is a serious issue—well, it is serious for everyone concerned, but travelling by bus is already a safe way to travel to school. I would like to probe the Minister on whether, when it comes to making the school bus that bit more visible, it would not be appropriate to start with authorities taking part in the pilot schemes.

George Young: I shall speak briefly to amendments Nos. 25 and 26 in my name, which pick up the hon. Gentleman's theme. I want to focus on seat belts in the context of safety. At the moment, there is a rather confused regime; if one gets on a bus in London, as many children do to go to school, there probably will not be a safety belt on it. If one gets on a school bus, it may or may not have safety belts. As I understand the position, the Government leave it to the discretion of the local education authority to specify in a contract whether the school bus should have safety belts.
 A number of families who take their children to school by car, but who are interested in the pilot schemes and are moving towards a more environmentally sympathetic means of transport, have raised with me the question of whether the school bus will have seat belts. At the moment, while they are driving their children to school, they are secure in their seats because the car has safety belts. If the proposition 
 is that the children should get on the school bus, and the school bus does not have safety belts, that acts as a disincentive. 
 As I mentioned on Second Reading, in the village of Shipton Bellinger in my constituency there is a campaign among those who send their children to school in Andover to substitute the current bus for one fitted with safety belts. Only yesterday I had a letter from a constituent on that very theme. It says: 
 ''The new contract''— 
between Hampshire county council and Clegg and Brooking— 
''means that the children are conveyed in safe, clean, warm and seat belted vehicles.'' 
The previous contract did not provide for seat-belted buses. The letter continues: 
 ''I now can go off to work myself knowing they are in capable hands.'' 
There is a different regime for coaches, because there is a difference between a coach and a bus. 
 The Government want pilots and want to get people, including children, out of cars and on to buses. Under this brave new scheme, it is important that the best buses are available. If some clapped-out bus with no seat belts arrives under a travel scheme, a lot of the support for pilot schemes will disappear. 
 My two amendments are basically probing amendments. Are the Government planning to take the opportunity offered by the pilots to get the best, safest, warmest buses available in order to change public attitudes, or will they be neutral and leave it entirely to the local education authority to decide what sorts of buses are put into the pilot schemes? I hope that the Minister will give LEAs a signal that the pilots are an opportunity to change public perceptions and make a statement about safety, and I hope that he will encourage the LEAs that are part of the pilots to specify that they want buses with seat belts.

Huw Edwards: I add my support for the spirit of the amendments, which are essentially about getting into the Bill a presumption that there is safety in any arrangements made. I come back to the example that I quoted earlier: it is fundamentally unsafe for pupils to be travelling long distances on very overcrowded buses, with many of them standing, or sitting three to a seat. That is unsafe not only for those pupils, but for other ordinary passengers who get on the bus. It is also fundamentally wrong that contracts that presume there will be overcrowding should be entered into with bus companies—BUSK calls that institutionalised overcrowding. I hope that in our discussions of the Bill we can have a presumption in favour of safety and against institutionalised overcrowding and that my hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that that presumption is included in the Bill.

Mark Hoban: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 47 and 48. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Monmouth and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire on the importance of safety.
 The Minister referred to the pre-legislative scrutiny that the Bill has undergone. It is a lucky Bill in the sense that it has had two lots of such scrutiny, one from the Education and Skills Committee and the other from the Transport Committee.

Huw Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman also acknowledge that the Welsh Assembly Subject Committee on Education and Lifelong Learning is currently undertaking a scrutiny of school transport? Unfortunately, it will not complete its deliberations until after the Bill's passage. However, it is part of the scrutiny that is being undertaken in Wales.

Mark Hoban: It is perhaps regrettable that that scrutiny process will not be completed until after the Bill's passage, because there are measures in the legislation that relate to Wales, and particularly to Welsh language schools. It would be good if that scrutiny process were speeded up so that its conclusions could be reflected on Report or when the Bill passes to another place.
 Paragraph 33 of the Transport Committee report states: 
 ''We were surprised that the Government admits that it does not know about the effects of the best value regime on the quality of school buses. It is clear from our evidence that many authorities interpret 'best value' as 'lowest cost'. This must be wrong. The Government should set national minimum standards for LEA school bus contracts.'' 
That would illuminate some of the inconsistencies that hon. Members have pointed out, particularly on the use of seat belts and whether they are available in buses or coaches. Some national standards would clarify such matters and address some of the safety aspects of bus travel. Interestingly, the Government's response to the Transport Committee listed three or four statutory instruments that referred to the safety of buses and coaches. That shows the complexity that is involved in LEAs addressing the safety aspects of the contracts that they let. 
 Amendment No. 48 relates to the remarks in an earlier debate of the hon. Member for Monmouth on the bus accident in the vale of Glamorgan, which was deemed to have perhaps been caused by misbehaviour on school buses. Many parents are put off from sending their child on a school bus because of the risk of misbehaviour. The Education and Skills Committee's report on the Bill states: 
 ''Poor pupil behaviour on buses was cited by parents as another major concern. Not only can this endanger the safety of passengers as drivers are distracted or equipment vandalised, it also makes for an unpleasant experience for other pupils travelling on the bus. There is some confusion over who exactly is responsible for ensuring good pupil behaviour on school buses.'' 
Later amendments about the use of escorts on buses might address that. 
 Pupil behaviour is a problem. The Audit Commission report ''Going Places'' states: 
 ''There are also significant opportunities to increase bus travel as an alternative to the school run. Behavioural problems on school and public transport are, for example, one reason why some parents prefer to take their children to and from school by car, but better bus services could reduce the car mileage associated with the school run.''
There is a tension there. If we want more parents to send their child on the school bus, we need to ensure that the behaviour of the children using those buses is of a high standard. In the Government's response to the Education and Skills Committee report, they said that if a child is excluded from a school bus the LEA has to pay the cost of transporting that child to school. Therefore, there is a financial disincentive to the LEA excluding a child from a school bus. It would have to pay for a taxi or find some other means of transport to get the child who is misbehaving on a school bus to school. 
 There is no incentive for the LEA to exclude children who are misbehaving—putting at risk the lives of other pupils on that bus or damaging equipment on it. It is time we took a much firmer line on the issue. It should not be the LEA that has to pick up the cost of children misbehaving on school buses by providing them with a taxi. We should be saying that the parents of those children should pay the cost of getting them to school. They should take responsibility for ensuring that their children get to school. Where a child is excluded from travelling on a school bus because of misbehaviour, the parents should pay, not the LEA.

Jim Knight: I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said; there are considerable behavioural problems on school buses in my constituency. However, I am interested in the wording of his amendment No.48, because it suggests to me that the LEA would have no discretion in excluding a pupil for bad behaviour; in cases of poor behaviour there would be an automatic exclusion. Would it not be better if the LEA had the right to exclude, but could judge each case on its merits?

Mark Hoban: If the Government accepted the spirit of the amendment, the wording could be finessed to cope with that point. Many schools can already exercise discretion in excluding pupils for poor behaviour. The wording of the amendment need not deter the Minister from accepting its spirit, and perhaps tabling amendments on Report to reflect that.
 It is fundamental that we tell parents that they are responsible if their child misbehaves on a bus, to the extent that the child is excluded from using school transport and they must pick up the financial cost, so that local authorities or schools feel that they have the discretion to expel children without having to carry the financial costs of doing so. That is the thinking behind amendment No. 48. If we are to encourage greater use of school transport, we need to tackle behaviour, to prevent the sort of accident that took place in the Vale of Glamorgan a couple of years ago, which the hon. Member for Monmouth mentioned. This is an important issue, we need to tackle it and the Bill provides the opportunity.

John Pugh: The amendments are all well intentioned and stress that safety is paramount—as indeed it is. When people hand their children over to a school transport arrangement, they want them to return
 safely, and to have a pleasant journey. Some of the amendments appear to put markers down and signpost the importance of safety in a general sense. At least one amendment adds some red meat to the Bill.
 Amendment No.29, which specifies safe embarking rules, seeks to add other duties into the school transport scheme arrangements. Everybody is sympathetic to that. People recognise that children must get safely on and off buses. That is obviously a critical time, when children may run away from the back of buses and so on, and accidents will happen. 
 However, I am not entirely clear whether some of what is being required is already implied in the general duties of schools to their pupils when schools run their own buses, or whether it is generally implied in transport law. Maybe the Minister can assist me. If it is not implied, it remains unclear to me whether in the process of introducing pilots one ought to seek to amend the general transport law as it applies across the land. However, the spirit of the proposal is sound. It is commendable and everybody ought to take it on board. 
 As I understand it, amendment No. 25 seeks to add the word ''safe'' after the word ''suitable''. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but it seems to be open to the objection that when one says ''suitable'', that means safe as well, so the addition is to some extent redundant. It points something out, but it does not say anything that is not already implied by ''suitable''. 
 Amendment No. 26 would insert the word ''safe'' before the phrase 
''walking distance of his home'' 
in paragraph 3(1)(a) of new schedule 35B. The intent is commendable, but it seems that the amendment would give the green light for authorities to renege on providing school transport schemes when there are perfectly safe, but inordinately long, routes to a school. It would point local authorities towards addressing the transport needs of people who have to take perilous routes, rather than the needs of those who have to take extraordinarily long routes. 
 I am sorry if I have misunderstood the intention of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), but that seems a corollary or consequence of what has been said. The Bill intends to allow local authorities the flexibility to cater not only for pupils who have relatively dangerous journeys to school, but for those who have extraordinarily long and arduous journeys to school. I would hate us to find, after the Bill has been passed, that children who have to travel 20 miles on perfectly safe roads had no school travel scheme to use. 
 I mentioned red meat, and amendment No. 48, which I thoroughly support, would add that to the Bill. I see no reason why a local authority should provide transport for pupils who, for whatever reason, imperil the safety of other people and make school transport a less attractive proposition. An excluded pupil can always make the decision to behave himself. We need provision for a system for reinstating a pupil when he decides to behave himself; as has been pointed out, a 
 certain amount of discretion should be given to the local authority. However, the fundamental principle that pupils who behave in such a way as to put the whole journey at risk ought not to be on school transport—and certainly should not be funded to take it—strikes me as eminently sound, and one that the Minister would be well advised to consider.

Huw Edwards: I am sympathetic to the spirit of the amendment—but who would determine whether a pupil was acting in an unruly way, when there might be no supervision on the bus other than by the driver? I do not doubt that many pupils do act in such a way; that was drawn to my attention when I went to a school council meeting in Caerleon recently.

John Pugh: With all punitive decisions somebody has to decide; otherwise no punishment would take place. Obviously we need a fair system, but the fact that such a system might not be perfect, but simply satisfactory, is no argument for not having a system at all.

Stephen Twigg: I shall deal with the amendments in three sections, and I shall keep my remarks brief. I shall speak first to amendments Nos. 29 and 47. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire pointed out that the Bill provides an opportunity to improve quality and safety, and then asked, perfectly properly, whether the Government are entirely neutral on that. I reassure him and the Committee that we are not entirely neutral; I see this Bill, and the school travel schemes that go with it, as an opportunity for us to enhance a series of different arrangements, such as the quality and safety of the transport options available, including buses.
 At the moment, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, provisions vary enormously in different parts of the country. We know that seat belts have to be provided on all school trips, and that when LEAs contract for buses, they can specify that belts should be provided. Increasingly LEAs do so, as is shown by the positive example of the Staffordshire yellow buses. However, that does not happen everywhere, and we have an opportunity. The prospectus asks local education authorities to set out safety and quality arrangements, but in the light of this important debate, I give the Committee an undertaking that we will consider further the message that the prospectus sends out on safety, which is so fundamental and central to school transport, and to school buses in particular. 
 Amendment No. 29 would add a specific reference to ensure safe means of embarking and disembarking from school transport. Amendment No. 47 seeks to provide more generally that a school travel scheme may include arrangements to ensure the safety of transport under a scheme. As the relevant part of the Bill stands, those are: 
''arrangements for the provision of transport . . . payment of the whole or any part of . . . reasonable travelling expenses, and . . . arrangements to facilitate or promote . . . different ways of travelling.'' 
I do not think it necessary to include specific reference to safety when alighting from or boarding a bus. Such arrangements are integral to the arrangements for the provision of transport under sub-paragraph (2)(a). 
 There is no need to mention them separately, especially as the sub-paragraph contains a non-exhaustive list of things that a scheme may contain, not a fully comprehensive list. Furthermore, the amendment would not guarantee that the arrangements were included in every scheme. 
 I believe that amendment No. 47, too, is unnecessary because, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Southport, safety is already an implicit requirement. Paragraph 3 of the new schedule refers to 
''suitable arrangements . . . for . . . transport to and from school.'' 
Arrangements could not be suitable if they were not safe. Indeed, the meaning of ''suitable'' in such a context has been considered in the courts, and it was held that it is implicit that LEAs have a duty to provide safe transport. The courts held that the LEA's duty is to make such arrangements for transport as it considers necessary for the child 
''to reach school without undue stress, strain or difficulty such as would prevent him from benefiting from the education the school has to offer, just as it must be to make such arrangements as it considers necessary for him to travel in safety and in reasonable comfort''.

Huw Edwards: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the clarification of that legal decision. Does he therefore believe that having contracts that, by their nature, require overcrowding would be unsuitable, and that such contracts should not be entered into?

Stephen Twigg: Of course I accept that. The debate is about the definition of overcrowding. We will return to the specific issue that my hon. Friend mentioned—the three-for-two rule—at a later stage.
 In our response to the Transport Committee's report on school transport, we reiterated the point that 
 ''It is illegal for anyone to use a vehicle on the road if it does not meet at least the minimum roadworthiness standards prescribed in legislation.'' 
Of course we want to go beyond that, and there will be important opportunities for us to do so. As we all know, absolute safety does not exist. Safer arrangements can be achieved by various means. What is clear from the debate is that we need to use every mechanism available to us to achieve greater safety. We believe that the prospectus is the best vehicle for that. It will encourage LEAs to submit bids for pilot schemes to consider new approaches to transport safety issues. In light of that I ask my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire not to press their amendments. 
 I move on to related amendment No. 25, which was also tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire. It too raises the question of inserting the word ''safe''. As I said, the meaning of ''suitable'' school transport has been considered by the courts and it was held that LEAs have a duty to provide safe transport for children of compulsory school age who attend their nearest suitable school. 
 I shall give the Committee some detail on that. Cases decided in 1989 and 1992 determine that an LEA's duty is to make the arrangements for transport that it considers necessary for a child, as I set out in response to the previous amendment. I therefore ask the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire not to press 
 his amendment, as I hope that I have given sufficient assurance to him and to the Committee that safety is central not only in existing case law and legislation, but in the intention behind the programme and the Bill. 
 I believe that amendment No. 48, tabled by those on the Opposition Front Bench, raises a central issue, as we heard in some of the earlier discussion. It seeks to introduce a power for local education authorities to withdraw entitlement to school transport in scheme areas where the behaviour of a pupil puts at risk the safety of other pupils using the same transport. The amendment would not extend that power to LEAs that were not part of the scheme. 
 I agree with what the hon. Member for Fareham said. Poor behaviour by pupils on school transport is an extremely serious issue. I welcome the opportunity to put on record and clarify the present position. The consequences of poor behaviour can be wide-ranging, as several contributions to the debate have already pointed out. There is an impact on other passengers, and in extreme cases tragic death or serious injury can result from such behaviour. It is perhaps not surprising that this is not the first occasion on which this important issue has been raised. 
 In the joint DFES and Department for Transport document ''Travelling to School: an action plan'' a number of actions for schools and LEAs were included in relation to this issue. The action plan asks each school to promote positive behaviour by pupils on their journey to and from school through rewarding positive behaviour and using sanctions to address poor behaviour, which I shall come to in a moment. Guidance for schools on behaviour on school transport is contained in key stage 3 behaviour and attendance materials. 
 As I am sure all hon. Members would agree, schools recognise that positive behaviour on the journey can help to enhance the school's reputation. Often the school's local reputation will be based more on the behaviour of pupils than on any other factor. We expect schools to work with the police, bus operators and the local community to promote best behaviour. 
 We also expect LEAs and transport authorities to tackle antisocial behaviour in a range of different ways, such as driver training and working with schools on an agreed approach. I would like to praise the work done by Essex county council, which found that a behaviour liaison officer and escorts, together with driver training, led to reduced vandalism and less bad behaviour. A number of authorities in Wales are also piloting the use of CCTV on routes that have been identified as prone to behaviour problems, and the results so far are encouraging. 
 Poor behaviour on buses is an issue that has been raised by LEAs. We are aware of cases where children eligible for free school transport have misbehaved consistently while travelling to or from school, and some authorities have adopted a policy of withdrawing transport, either for a temporary period or permanently, for more serious or persistent cases of misbehaviour. The intention is for such sanctions to be a deterrent, and it is hoped that that they would rarely 
 need to be invoked. It is important to signal to pupils and parents—and we can do so on a cross-party basis today—that behaviour which endangers other pupils, or indeed the driver and other passengers, will not be tolerated. 
 We understand that there may be a degree of confusion surrounding what can and cannot be done in terms of sanctions for poor behaviour on the school bus. Part of the confusion lies with the interplay between the provision of school transport and the law surrounding school attendance. Section 444(4) of the 1996 Act describes the circumstances in which the parent of a pupil of compulsory school age will have a defence to the charge of failing to secure that child's regular attendance at school. 
 Effectively, a parent of a child attending their nearest suitable school and living outside the statutory walking distance would have a defence against a charge for non-attendance if transport were not provided. However, the offence is having a child who fails to attend school regularly. If a child were banned from the school bus for a day, or perhaps even a week, the LEA would not be able to prosecute for non-attendance under section 444. That means that an LEA could withdraw access to transport temporarily without having to consider whether alternative transport should be provided. 
 Regarding the legal position where the withdrawal of transport would result in the child failing to attend school regularly, our legal advice is that there may be circumstances in which the LEA has no legal obligation to provide alternative transport. Section 444(4) of the 1996 Act means that the LEA has to make suitable transport arrangements if it wants to retain the ability to prosecute the parents for failure to attend regularly. However, that is not the same as saying that it has a legal obligation to provide the transport. 
 In the circumstances that we are considering, the LEA would not be saying that transport was not necessary and should not be provided, but that—this is the crucial point—transport was necessary and suitable transport had been provided, but that the child's behaviour was such that he could not take advantage of it. That has not been stated clearly enough before, which is why I have taken some time to place it firmly on the record that that is our understanding of the case, and that defence exists in such circumstances. 
 That puts the onus back on to the parents under section 7 of the 1996 Act. Our guidance on exclusion from school clearly states: 
 ''Pupils' behaviour in the immediate vicinity of the school or on a journey to or from school can . . . be grounds for exclusion.'' 
Most people agree that poor behaviour on transport needs addressing through a variety of means. I hope that I have given the hon. Member for Fareham and the Committee some assurance that, under the existing powers there is the ability to achieve the result that he rightly urged on the Committee. In the light of my comments, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford to withdraw the amendment.

David Kidney: My hon. Friend the Minister was right to say that the provision to which my amendment relates deals with permissive arrangements that local authorities could make if they so wanted, but would not have to make as a mandatory duty. I wanted to draw to the attention of local authorities the safety issue involving school buses so the record of the debate will do that job for me. I was pleased that my hon. Friend said that the provision related to all forms of transport. Clearly, the Government would not want local authorities to tempt pupils out of cars into walking or cycling to school only for casualty figures to go up, not down. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have close regard to safety information. I was convinced that he was right when he said that the way to approach such matters is to improve the prospectus, which at present contains little on safety, and given his assurance that he will improve the prospectus, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mark Hoban: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in
clause 1, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
 '(3) A school travel scheme must include arrangements to ensure that any person engaged in driving or escorting a child with special educational needs or a disability to and from school shall be required to have an enhanced Criminal Records Bureau check before they start work.
 (4) A school travel scheme must include arrangements to ensure that any person engaged in driving or escorting a child with special educational needs or a disability to and from school shall be required to receive appropriate disability equality training.'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 57, in 
clause 1, page 2, line 30, at end insert— 
 'Children with mobility difficulties 
 3A (1) If a child has mobility difficulties, the scheme authority must provide transport to and from the school at which he is a registered pupil, regardless of whether the child lives inside the walking distance as defined in section 444(5). 
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph ''mobility difficulties'' means that a child cannot walk to and from school with safety and reasonable comfort because of his special educational needs or disability.'. 
No. 58, in 
clause 1, page 2, line 36, leave out from 'scheme' to end of line and insert— 
 '(a) for a protected child is provided free of charge; and 
 (b) for a child with a disability or special educational needs that incurs additional expense, and where this provision is necessary because a child has a disability or special educational need, is paid for by the scheme authority.'. 
No. 44, in 
clause 1, page 3, line 4, at end insert 
 ', or 
 '(e) who has mobility problems which are certified by a doctor and who lives within the statutory walking distance to the nearest suitable school.'. 
No. 46, in 
clause 1, page 3, line 4, at end insert 
 ', or 
 '(g) who is a child with special educational needs attending a school which is deemed to be suitable by virtue of the provision made for particular needs.'.
No. 60, in 
clause 1, page 3, line 41, at end insert— 
 '(c) report to the appropriate national authority annually concerning the impact of the school travel scheme on children with special educational needs and on disabled children, including the number of such children for whom transport to and from school is currently provided by that scheme authority and what charges, if any, have been made for transport provided to such children.'.

Mark Hoban: Part of this group of amendments relates to our debate on school transport safety. It also involves issues facing children with special educational needs and how such children will be affected by the Bill—a topic that was raised on several occasions by, among others, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale), on Second Reading. I wish to tackle amendment No. 53 in two parts. First I shall talk about escort arrangements and disability training, before referring to the impact of some provisions on children with special educational needs.
 As for people involved in driving or escorting children with special educational needs to and from school, many groups that deal with such children have asked who is undertaking such duties and what checks are in place. Many helplines operated by such organisations receive calls about drivers and escorts. We know about the extensive use of taxis or minibuses to take children to special schools. Some children who attend special schools have difficulty in communicating with others, so they are particularly vulnerable to threats. The Special Educational Consortium is aware of incidents when children with special educational needs have been subjected to verbal or physical abuse on the journey to and from school. Its major concern is that, because many such children lack the ability to communicate with their parents, abuses sometimes go undetected. 
 The amendment would ensure that drivers and escorts underwent enhanced Criminal Records Bureau checks before they could drive or escort a child to a special school. Without those checks, many people involved in organisations concerned with special educational needs are worried that children lack the protection of the law. The Special Educational Consortium has cited a couple of examples. Child A has a severe learning disability and is driven to and from school in a minicab. Her mother noticed that on certain days, her daughter would arrive back late from school, disturbed and upset. It turned out that the girl had been subject to abuse by the driver. Another parent contacted an SEC member helpline to say that the escort had displayed inappropriate behaviour towards a number of children. She had delayed her CRB check, which enabled her to work unsupervised and unmonitored for a number of weeks. The parents' concern was that their complaints about the escort were ignored by the LEA. 
 There is strong demand among parents of children with special educational needs and the organisations that represent them for CRB checks to be made before the journey can take place. A driver might call in sick and a relief driver might be put on the route—a relief 
 driver who would not need a CRB check, yet who might pose a great risk to a child. That is the sort of issue that we need to address. 
 The second part of amendment No. 53 is about equality training, to make the escorts and drivers aware of some of the issues that affect children with special educational needs. It is important that anyone who works with SEN children understands the nature and impact of their disability or condition. A lack of awareness about a child's condition can put that child at risk. One need only think about some of the issues connected with children with autism, who lack a sense of danger. They are at particular risk if the escort and driver do not realise that that is an aspect of the condition. 
 We need to ensure that, as far as possible, the drivers and escorts are aware of the needs of the children that they look after, and training in disability awareness would help to equip them with the skills that they need to manage pupils with particular disabilities or special educational needs. Such training would also enhance the protection of children at risk in those situations, and the safety of the children who use that form of transport to get to their special school or special provision. 
 I now move on to the broader issue of free transport for many such children. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State helpfully gave the commitment that free transport would continue for children for whom transport was specified as part of their statement. That reassurance was welcomed in the House on that day. I think that the Secretary of State said that an amendment might be brought forward at some point to help to enshrine that in the Bill. However, there is a problem attached to the limited protection that the Secretary of State outlined. 
 The first issue is that the Government's strategy for tackling children with special educational needs talks about moving away from statements. The Government want to create a relationship of trust between the parent and the LEA. They want fewer statements to be issued, recognising many parents' concerns about the time taken to get a statement, the whole assessment procedure, and the challenge that the statements go through. However, if a parent's only legal protection for free school transport is the transport element of a statement, parents will push far harder for a statement that includes specific reference to their transport needs. 
 The limited protection that the Secretary of State gave works against children with special educational needs, and the Government's policy goal of moving away from statements. That is a tension that needs to be recognised in the prospectus or the Bill. However, a number of children do not have statements, or have statements in which free transport for school is not specified. We need to look carefully at the protection for those children. In amendments Nos. 44 and 46, which I tabled, I have tried to outline situations in which that protection of free school transport could be given. 
 Some children attend a unit, such as the one for children with speech problems that I visited in Leatherhead yesterday. Children were being taken on 20-minute taxi journeys from outside the catchment area to attend that unit, which attracted pupils from across Surrey. For many of those pupils that is the suitable school, because it gives them the help and support that they need. If we are saying that a school is suitable for tackling particular conditions or disabilities, should we not say that free school transport should extend to the pupils who attend that school on the grounds of its suitability? In my constituency there are two units attached to schools for children with hearing impairment. I would like to see some protection for children being transported to those schools from elsewhere, including Fareham and the surrounding area, to make use of its specialist facilities. 
 If we are to encourage inclusion in mainstream schools and we want children to benefit from the specialist facilities available in them, we need to consider the transport implications. The increased provision of specialist units attached to schools indicates that we should be moving in that direction. 
 There are other areas to consider, too. The National Autistic Society and the Parents Autism Campaign for Education—PACE—gave evidence about some of the issues facing children with autism. A recent NAS survey said that 
''well over half . . . of those caring for a person with autism described using transport as difficult for those they cared for, with 11% of carers surveyed indicating that transport triggered behavioural difficulties.'' 
If as a consequence of the Bill, there is more movement away from specialist transport for children with autism, that would affect other children using school buses, because of the problems that arise. 
 Many children with an autistic spectrum disorder experience oversensitivity to different sensory stimuli, including light, noise and touch. Children with autism find unstructured time difficult and may be anxious, due to bullying, or disruption to a routine on the way back from school. There is a need to ensure that transport is provided for them, but the Bill might undermine that. We recognise that the cost of SEN transport is two-thirds of the school transport budget and is a visible target for LEAs seeking to reduce costs when their budgets are under pressure, but those costs involve vulnerable children who need support. Transport is both an easy target and one of the most difficult costs for an LEA to cover. 
 The Education and Skills Committee and the Transport Committee touched on that matter. Having read the Government's response to the Education and Skills Committee's report, I am concerned that their assurances are slightly anodyne, and could be firmer to give more guidance to scheme authorities. Paragraph 22 of the response says: 
 ''We agree that there will always be some pupils with'' 
special educational needs
''who will need individual transport, and we also agree that changes to travel arrangements for pupils with SEN need to be planned carefully.'' 
Those are warm words, but parents and organisations working with children with special educational needs require more reassurance than the Government's response provides. The other Government responses to the special educational needs section of the Education and Skills Committee's report were equally bland. 
 If we are to tackle the concerns of the special educational needs groups—and those of the parents and children whom they represent—we need better guidance in the Bill on who is entitled to free school transport. How far do we go beyond the people who are entitled to it as a consequence of their SEN statement, and how do we ensure that we encourage or enable as many children as possible to access the specialist support that they need, without their parents feeling that there is a financial penalty for doing so?

Roger Casale: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 57, 58 and 60, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and to amendment No. 53, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Fareham.
 We are moving into one of the most difficult and sensitive areas of the Bill, and as we do so, part of me says, ''Quit while you're up.'' We addressed some of these issues in an earlier part of the debate. Some of the issues that we are trying to address through the amendments can be examined in relation to the enhanced consultation between service users and local authorities that we are going to try to bring about. 
 As I have said before, the transport of children with special educational needs involves not only vulnerable children, but vulnerable children who could be placed in a vulnerable situation. The situation described by the hon. Member for Fareham—a child with special educational needs being abused—is not at all far-fetched. In fact, there have been such cases, and they can happen again. That brings to mind awful nightmare scenarios. We must remember that the way things are at the moment, parents of children with special educational needs have to face those nightmares and uncertainties every day. 
 It is also important to point out that there is currently rather an open door for individuals who are intent on abusing children to infiltrate minicab firms and get themselves appointed as escorts for vulnerable children. As the Committee continues its work and as the Bill progresses through the House we have an opportunity to close that door, and we have a responsibility to do so. 
 On the face of it, the amendment looks attractive. However, we must ask ourselves whether we are trying to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I described a situation in my local authority area involving non-compliance with Criminal Records Bureau checks. The problem was not the nature of the checks, but the fact that they were not being done in the first place. We must ask ourselves whether making the system even more bureaucratic and enhancing the requirements covering Criminal Records Bureau checks will deal 
 with the problem. We need to consider the measure, but I want to see that door closed, and the problem resolved. 
 As I understand it, a lack of communication between service providers and service users is at the heart of the problem. That leads to a lack of confidence on the part of service users. We must examine how we can get to a situation where the existing legal requirements and the mechanisms for criminal records checks are properly enacted. That is in addition to thinking about how we can enhance that system. I await with great interest what emerges from the passage of the Bill on enhanced consultation on this issue. There is a serious problem and we must address it. 
 Inevitably when one raises a constituency issues, one draws the attention of national bodies. I am grateful to the Special Educational Consortium, which includes the National Autistic Society, Mencap, Scope, the Royal National Institute of the Blind and the Parents Autism Campaign for Education. I pay tribute to those organisations, which are the first port of call for many people who face such problems every day. We 
 must listen carefully to them. The Minister mentioned the work that they did in bringing forward amendments during the pre-legislative scrutiny. They have also helped my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and me to devise the amendments that we have tabled. 
 Amendment No. 57 would ensure that schemes make provision for children with mobility difficulties who live within statutory walking distance of their school. Amendment No. 58 would ensure that a child with special educational needs and/or a disability would not incur any financial penalty as a consequence of that disability. A disabled child would not be charged for transport services that they needed to meet their additional needs, irrespective of whether that provision was detailed in the statement. 
 I will leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud to discuss those amendments further. I would like— 
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.